@coryland21 No you dolt, lobbyists want MORE government spending! Why? So that the industry they're lobbying on behalf of gets federal funding and/or special treatment and they only have to kick back a portion of the money they make to the politician's campaign funds.
500 Million plus, to Solyndra nets 1100 lost jobs. Yep, the Government sure knows how to create jobs and lower costs. That's over 1 million to every man, woman and child in the US. Obama and his goofy supporters still think it's alright to extract more capital out of the private sector and tell us the rich are the problem. House plants have a higher IQ.
Regulations reduce profits of course, just like in sports you can't break the rules to score more points. Does anyone really think it's worth letting big business pollute with impunity just so they can make a bit more money?
Second, if all this is true why do the majority of economists disagree? And the Cato institude which has a political bias should be trusted over the majority?
@Nemesis000000 If you're an economists from a state-funded university or bureaucracy of course you're going to give the thumbs-up to government interventionism. That's good job security but it's an academic conflict of interest.
@rubbersole79 You mom paid me to fuck her in the ass last night.
But besides that, this is a video from the Cato institute. Of course they're gonna tell you government spending doesn't create jobs. This is a right wing think tank.
And of course a left-wing think tank will go through pains to de-emphasize/marginalize the importance of private initiative with regard to the collective productivity of a society. They'll insist that taking wealth [generated by private sector activity] out of the economy in order to arbitrarily "create a job" for a job's sake and/or spawn additional layers of government bureaucracy is a good, sustainable solution.
@bobshenix Might not be the best solution, but to make the claims that this video makes is highly disingenuous. The GAO estimates that three dollars of economic activity are generated for every one dollar of government stimulus. To claim there is zero benefit or wealth generated by government spending is a lie.
@hawanja Your statement is a complete lie, if spending created wealth like you say then Zimbabwe would be the worlds super power right now. According to your logic we should spend spend spend spend with no end in sight. If it was that easy we could just print our selves into prosperity.
Government spending has, is, and always will be counter-productive to economic growth of a country. History proves it, what's happening in the US and some parts of EU prove it. When will you wake up to reality?
@DraughtOfPeace Wrong, government spending can be a perfectly good driver of economic activity. You people who repeat this "Government is never the answer" bullshit over and over and over fail to understand that it is one of many answers. Those countries in the world in which the populace enjoys a higher standard of living and larger social freedoms - for instance, countries in Norther Europe - are mixed economies. You people need to understand this.
u commit a whole truckload of economic & logical fallacies. Government is inherently a net drag on economic growth- ANY AND EVERY action taken by government comes at the EXPENSE of the free private productive sector of the economy
u have committed the broken window fallacy- u know what that is? it goes somethin like this:
Johnny one day naughty as he is, breaks one of the baker's windows.
The baker seeing this, is FURIOUS with Johnny. People gather all around the damaged store. Some of the people start saying, "poor baker". And others say, "Oh wait! this will create jobs and can stimulate the economy! The baker will need to get his window fixed & thus will employ the glass maker. And the glass maker can then use the money to buy a new suit from the tailor. Then the tailor can buy some carrots from the farmer etc etc etc. "
if destruction & coercion really did make people wealthy & 'stimulate' an economy, why stop at just the baker's window. If it really did create wealth, we should break ALL windows. No don't stop there- also destroy all cars - that will create jobs for auto workers. And don't stop there- destroy all computers, steam shovels & tractors. Also destroy all science textbooks- that will also create employment for scientists
What is wrong with this thinkin is that u miss the notion of opportunity costs. There are only finite amounts of resources(people, time, tools, technological knowledge, etc) available in an economy. But people have an infinite number of demands. The whole purpose of an economy is to allocate resources in a peaceful manner so as to meet everyone's marginal highest utility at any given moment - to satisfy people's marginal highest desire - this is called wealth
If the baker's window was not broken, then not only would he have his window, but also he could use that money & resources & his time & energy to either hire a new employee, expand his buisiness, buy more wheat, or buy a new suit etc etc. And that will truly stimulate the economy in a PRODUCTIVE manner
If u look closely at the net result of both cases, in the former case the whole of society is poorer by AT LEAST 1 broken window.
See if the baker spends his money fixin a broken window, he can't spend it hirin a new employee or buyin a new suit. B/c of the broken window though, we don't know what he would have spent those resources on and everyone becomes essentially poorer b/c of it
Same thing w/ ALL govt action. Govt has absolutely no capital- it does not produce any goods only bads or super bads. It STEALS all the resources that it has. it steals the money from the private sector and every person 'employed'
by the government inherently costs at least 2 - 3 jobs (assuming equivalent pays). But on average actually, govt workers each cost at least 10 jobs in the private sector. This is a rather conservative estimate
@swu880 Tell that to Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, XE, Haliburton, or any of the other contractors out there who reap billions upon billions of our public dollars.
Hey, why is it you free-market libertarian-conservative dipshits always want to cut the social programs like Medicare because they "Cost too much," but you never say a damn thing about cutting our overbloated military spending?
@hawanja you need to understand that in northern Europe they are (for the most part) living in a bubble that will pop eventually, and it will be that much more difficult to counteract it when it happens. a few of them already encountered said problem, much earlier than the states.. because of their socialist programs, and those that have go the way of Austrian economics and reduce spending.
@daPlumber702 In Northern Europe, they have problems like shortages of manual labor because too many people have advanced degrees. Don't you wish we had that problem?
So talk shit all you want, in real life the facts agree with my case, not yours. A mixed economy has thus far been shown to give the highest benefit to a nations's citizens. The only reason it wouldn't work here is because you lazy, idiotic dipshits are too fucking stupid to raise taxes on rich people.
lolwut. i live in northern europe (netherlands) and we have very low unemployment. there is no shortage of manual labor. also, taxing the rich will never work. taxes in this country are already among the highest in the world, income tax alone is ~50%!
(rich) people put money on a bank, the bank then loans it out to people who need it. the last thing you want is to tax the rich (or others) more because that would missalocate their valuable resources into wasteful government spending..
@ApocDevTeam Sorry but that sounds like a bunch of horse sh#t. If you are defending tax breaks for rich people you are either a complete moron or rich yourself. I work two jobs and have a dependent. I eat f#%#ckin beans every day and scrounge to pay my daughters education, food, clothes, and health. Tax breaks mean a lot to me and my family.
rather than judging by emotion use your logic. tax increases will never work regardless of whether it's on the rich or poor because taxes take away valuable resources from the private sector. if the rich are taxed less then you don't increase their taxes, you said it yourself, tax breaks would help you. so rather than increase taxes on rich, lower taxes on middle class and poor. also, i'm not rich, i also live on baked beans, but at least i'm not a debt slave.
@hawanja I'm not sure how lazy = not wanting to tax the rich. Pretty sure the welfare states in Europe have high unemployment because those manual labor jobs barely pay more than welfare.
Another problem with your analysis is that here in America, where apparently too few people have college degrees (and the 100,000 dollars in student debts that go with it), is that we already have too many overqualified people. Why should you need a BA to work at the GAP or type into a computer all day?
@worldofdraculas The qualifying word in that sentence is "Stupid." Conservatives are too fucking stupid to realize that the rich people are manipulating the "values voters" into passing tax cuts which benefit them and no one else.
Take a look at all of the proposals made by the Republicans and conservatives, since the Supercomitte failed. Every single one of them - ALL OF THEM - raise taxes on the middle class, while cutting taxes for rich people.
@hawanja Of course many are blind like you and so they crank the policy back up once the beauty of the austrian system drags them out of the hole socialism creates.
+ the discovery of oil off shore of Northern Europe hasn't hurt them much either, especially since they nationalize the oil industry and make pure profit out of it, which is pretty f'n despicable itself.
Your argument sucks is what's being said here. It's been proven wrong time and time again, but as I said, people are blind.
@hawanja Of course there is wealth and benefited when government spends money. The question is the benefit greater than the cost, and who benefits? Lobbyists, politicians, and walls street types benefit from government spending and regulation, and the expense of the rest of us.
@bobshenix I'm with a yellow beak think tank and we think this vid in bullsheet..How do these ideas help people? We question everything. What's a "shenix" anyway? Is that some kind of new space age toilet that massages your anus after a burning post "jalepeno popper and cervesa evening" crap? We propose raising taxes on the rich and providing every household with 2 Shenix's.
Your post is nonsensical and almost unworthy of reply. All i'll say is that communist/socialist policies sound nice, but are predictably unsustainable and history has shown us that Marxism basically levels an economy to the ground.
The people may be equal, but they all end up equally miserable and dominated by a powerful [yet oh so self-righteous] government. The living standards of the lower classes in free market societies are superior to those of the working classes with socialism.
Let's get Ron Paul elected in 2012. He is a libertarian running for the republican nomination, and he will reduce the reckless spending more than any other candidate.
The government does create jobs and in a healthy economy it has to create jobs. To be sure these jobs have a kind of zero sum game to it and ultimatly the taxpayers pay have to pay these wages but it is necessary in a civil society to maintain a police force and firefighters, and build road and schools with teachers and student. Now these job numbers might pale in comparison to what the private sector should create. But they are as important as any job(cont)
@idicula1979 (cont), but that is the thing there might be some teabaggers that knows this (and the should know it) but they are not interested in building a healthy civil society, for this reason people are right to hold them in contempt. Just look at the gridlock in Washington and tell me it is not their fault infact they would like to create more gridlock, they are the biggest reason that government does not work, (cont)
@idicula1979 (cont) how very ironic would it be for the side that can fanatically and in such a hollow manner hold the constitution up, be the downfall of America.
@idicula1979 You're right. We do need firefighters and policemen and schools and teachers. But those are local and state government employees. The Federal Government doesn't and shouldn't be able to decide who's hired at a local level. That's for the states and individual communities to decide.
What this video is saying, is that spending more money and increasing taxes aren't going to encourage businesses to higher more. It's going to make them lay off workers and hire less.
@SPJ1993343 And even if people believe stimulus spending is the key( many of us don't), it should be done at a local level not at the federal level.. That, they will never understand. Clinton had a plan for 100,000 cops coast to coast. But once the initial stimulus to hire those cops dried up, it was the local community that had to pay for their annual salaries, union benefits and all the overtime they suck from the tax payer. Suffice to say, Clinton never met that targeted goal.
@idicula1979 Sometimes the federal government is the only only institution to make a large scale project make sense and sometimes it is better left upto the state, but the is a role for all three governments at times local, state, and federal. The problem is that republicans like to think there is a simple one size solution to everythinge, which in many cases is not true life does not have many one size fits all problems. However this is also why your message is so appealing because (cont.)
@idicula1979 allthought it is lacking ( as that should be obvious to anyone) it is clear and can fit on a bummper sticker. Democrats are much more nuanced as life requires. And beside what does it matter to a republican what kind of government it is wheather it be local, federal, or state all three can be obtuse at times. No the republicans just want to make government smaller and smaller till they can choke the life out of it, or as teabagger hero Grover Norquest says "drown it in a bathtub.
Ahh, CATO. Okay so, let me put down what they want in easy terms.
1. Cut spending (Kill all government agencies so they can be privatized.)
2. Pledge no Tax Increases (for the wealthy, those workers didn't earn anything, they don't deserve any money, they can live off mud and dirty water anyway)
3. Regulations (Get rid of them, all of them, and government over site, and kill OSHA too. That will save the trillions.)
@Reynard13Fuchs Thank you for demonstrating the bankruptcy of the liberal position. You can't make an argument that government spending creates jobs (no economically valid one exists), so you criticize spending cuts (which return money to the private sector to create jobs), support tax increases (which remove resources from the private sector that could otherwise create jobs and support regulations (which have demonstrably caused more problems than they've solved). Brilliant!
@FletchforFreedom Yes, and trickle down economics really helped America, and Ronald Reagan was a noble Holy Crusader for the American Dream.
The far rights objective, is to tear up the constitution, adopt Christianity as the national religion, institute the Holy Bible as law, kill all taxes, abolish regulations and labor laws and criminalize the unions.
Do that and it will be EXACTLY like life in Arab nations. Oppression, Hatred and Death for anyone that disagrees with the law and the wealthy.
@Reynard13Fuchs Thanks for another straw man festival. In the 1980s, the rich got richer and the poor got ... richer. Still, neither Cato nor those making economic arguments have any desire to create a national religion (and actively wish to restore the Constitution which the Left has turned into mere paper by contruction). Since the fact is that neither regulations, labor laws nor unions are at all responsible for the prosperity of the workers in this country, the Arab comment is stupid.
@FletchforFreedom I never said what CATO wanted. As for your argument on regulations, they help institute safety that business must maintain. Unions bring workers concerns to the eyes of the business executives, and labor laws provide wage limits (which don't follow inflation) for all workers and prevent industry from hiring children as labor.
@Reynard13Fuchs To the contrary, regulations have done more hrm than good, wages and working conditions improved more and more quickly in the absence of both unions and labor laws; capitalism - not unions - brought child labor to an effective end, unions have cost the economy, by conservative estimates, $50 TRILLION dollars (Vedder & Galloway) that might otherwise have been used to improve wages and create jobs. Literally every claim you've made is long disproved.
@FletchforFreedom So deregulating the airlines didn't send the several airlines into the pit of bankruptcy and death and cause American Airlines to strip all of the grey paint off their aircraft and fly with polished metal to cut costs (also due to the compounded oil crisis of that time). You also say "might otherwise have been used". That can also apply to the Bush and Bush promised Obama era bailouts that went to wall street and into the back pockets of executives, totally unregulated.
@Reynard13Fuchs That American couldn't compete is not a problem with deregulation and, in fact, more flights at lower rates providing more jobs were created. That's how competition works. Nor sis I (or anyone else here) defend bailouts (which are a problem of government - which caused the underlying crisis in the first place - not lack of regulation). You seem to like straw men - attributing positions to others without any basis whatsoever.
American Airlines did compete, they found ways to save money and still fly at lower rates than any company at that time and for a while since that time. And yes, no one defended bail outs. But at the time, Bush and the Right Wing said that the US could not let Wall Street, Real Estate, and Banks go bankrupt. They should have let them die. That would have put a lot of people out of jobs, but it would have brought smaller companies into a bigger field with more jobs.
@Reynard13Fuchs By definition, if American Airlines could compete, they would still be in business. QED. That Bush was an economic incompetent was a point made by economists (and the "right-wing") all along. That Obama is an even greater economic incompetent is hardly something to cheer. Yes, bailouts should never have happened (actually absent the promise of bailouts much - though not most - of the damage could have been avoided).
@FletchforFreedom If you have an ideal society, please spell it out without sarcasm and without left bashing. Explain how it would keep big business from taking the money and giving it to themselves and how it can open jobs. Explain how no regulation, no labor law, and no unions will help the worker stay in a safe workplace, earn an honest and inflation adjusted wage, and have enough to support the economy by buying goods and services.
@Reynard13Fuchs I haven't been sarcastic; I've simply been correcting your factual inaccuracies. I am a proponent of liberty. Businesses don't need to be prevented from "taking money" from anyone or need to be forced to "open jobs". In a free market they do so becasue it is in their interest to do so (it's the ONLY thing that has ever created ANY job). Again, wages and working conditions steadily and more rapidly improved in the ABSENCE of unions/labor laws/regulations.
@Reynard13Fuchs I haven't been sarcastic; I've simply been correcting your factual inaccuracies. I am a proponent of liberty. Businesses don't need to be prevented from "taking money" from anyone or need to be forced to "open jobs". In a free market they do so becasue it is in their interest to do so (it's the ONLY thing that has ever created ANY job). Again, wages and working conditions steadily and more rapidly improved in the ABSENCE of unions/labor laws/regulations.
@Reynard13Fuchs I haven't been sarcastic; I've simply been correcting your factual inaccuracies. I am a proponent of liberty. Businesses don't need to be prevented from "taking money" from anyone or need to be forced to "open jobs". In a free market they do so becasue it is in their interest to do so (it's the ONLY thing that has ever created ANY job). Again, wages and working conditions steadily and more rapidly improved in the ABSENCE of unions/labor laws/regulations.
@Reynard13Fuchs And since the economy is supported by production, not consumption, the "support the economy" reference is economically absurd.
Oh, and please don;t being up the long debunked canard about the stagnating middle class which has gotten steadily greater compensation in real terms over the last 30 years.
@FletchforFreedom So you are an Economist and Financial Officer. Are you telling me that everything I learned in American Economics about Supply and Demand is a lie?
As for stagnation? No not the middle class, but the US dollar. Wages have remained at the same amount for over 40 years, and the value of the dollar has dropped dramatically since Lyndon B Johnson took office. Since a few years after WWII, the wealthy 1% of Americans have been getting drastically lower income tax rates.
@Reynard13Fuchs Nothing I've said contradicts supply and demand. The wage stagnation myth has been long debunked. What has happened is that more compensation has been paid in benefits. Total compensation, adjusted for inflation, has risen substantially and steadily over that entire period. And that rates have dropped from the absurd 90% level to levels that are substantially better for the economy as a whole and job creation is a fundamentally good thing.
@SRone; hmm let me think. The businesses dont get funded b/c government spent the money. Therefore people get laid off because the businesses don't have the money they should have got, but the government spent it. People getting laid off equals a decrease in employment. Need I explain m
Not following the 3 goals in this video will destroy America's economy and currency. We can't compete against businesses in countries that do not have this disasterous regulatory and price-fixing overhead. Complain about their practices all you want, but we can only control of our own. Changing the behavior in another country is a different subject of political pursuit entirely. Have fun with that. That's not what this conversation is about.
Government spending certainly created jobs under Reagan. Look at table 1.1.2 on the BEA website. More than 1/3 of the economic growth in 1985 and 1986 was due to increased public investment and consumption. Unemployment fell from 7.5% to 5%. Without that spending boost, growth would have been less then 3% and insufficient to lower unemployment. Facts are stubborn things.
@rust454 The reason companies hire in third world countries is very simple. Slave wages. Wages for the working people in the US have been flat to declining for 30 years thanks to the anti labor policies of Reagan and all those who have followed. Free market free trade globalism is good for the wealthiest but not the rest of us. That is CATO's agenda. Try doing a search on the Koch bros.
@notaneoliberal Slave wages compared to what? If they're uneducated labor, undernourished, underperforming, then the product quality would suffer. Your solution is simple, go elsewhere in the world and promote min. wage (inflation subsidy) and other regs that cost businesses money, increasing the price of goods and services everywhere, making us all poorer. Ideas are ideas... stop personalizing them. It's not about notaneoliberal, Koch, Cato or Reagen. Costs reduce gains. We all want to gain.
@gwydion75 You don't seem to be thinking through your own thoughts. Yes we all want to gain. "costs reduce gains"? Gains for who? I am not advocating trying to control wages or labor practices in other parts of the world. I am for protecting our own. I'm not sure what you mean by "stop personalizing them". These are the personal ideas of the Koch bros. They do fund CATO,The Heritage Foundation,etc. Do you have any clue of the pay and working conditions in third world countries?
@boredmonkey29 The graph is deliberately misleading since they use spending as a percentage of GDP instead of real spending in billions. Spending as a percentage of GDP measures the ratio between spending growth and GDP growth. When GDP growth is slow, the ratio increases. When GDP growth is slow, the employment to population ratio decreases. If you simply plotted spending in real terms you would see that increased govt spending increases the employment to population ratio.
@terribletrench One percentage corresponds with the % of population line, the other to the % of GDP line. For example, in 2000, when the Federal Spending % of GDP was around 18%, the Employed % of Population was up at 64%. In contrast, at 25% of GDP in 2009 (it's now up near 80%), the employed % of population is near 59%. It's a 5% loss of private employment (productive employment) for a 7% gain in Federal spending of GDP.
lol. I think it makes more sense to say the low employment causes increased Gov't spending (as a percentage of GDP). Not the other way around. Yet this vid uses this correlation to argue that gov't spending hurts employment. WTF?
ALL! Systemic Failures are predicated upon the fact that the Top 1% do NOT have a Tax Rate Increase. As well the Continued exodus of Manufacturing Base because of Tax Breaks and Subsidies. This is a Man Made Problem, the question is why would the U.S. Government want social unrest? Why would anyone want the most well armed Country in the history of mankind, starving? Austerity is coming and so is the result of that action. Once again why?
@JWnFL "All" is a child's word. Caps Lock is a child's tool; adding volume but not veracity. Between your random capitalization, advocacy of violence, and dogmatic talking points, I suspect that you cannot be reasoned with. You are either a troll, or as coined in L'Umanita, a useful idiot.
@032125 Thanks for the website I will check it out.. we promote misses institute already.. if this other misses is any good I will pass it on to Tyler and maybe he will link to it.
The information is fine I guess, but too complicated and laborious to share with the uninformed layman - aka not usable in winning converts, aka preaching to the choir. Oh well.
It's funny, Democrats' goals are the exact opposite of the three suggestions at the end of the video. More spending, higher taxes, and more regulation. People say the two parties are the same, but at least Republicans pay lip service to the three goals.
Obama and the Democrats are doing everything that they can to hold back, control, hamper, regulate and steal from businesses and those who start, own and run them. They are doing everything possible to destroy the economy. Then they scream JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
@JWnFL Ask yourself: where do most problems in the US come from? You can trace most of the problems we're dealing with today to the government.
You need to think about your problem-solving philosophy - continuously putting counter-productive government patches on problems that government created is only going to make things worse, like it is. We didn't become the greatest country in the history of the Earth by having a large government.
@H1TMANactual stop zerohedge (dot) com and maybe you will have a better understanding of the world. my motto is "Vote with Bullets" so you could say I am liberal with ammo.. or rope, I like the idea of stretching some necks. but the fact that you are stuck on team blue or team red means you need more information.
@JWnFL Yeah o.k retard, you're here calling CATO propaganda (notice the correct spelling) and telling me to pretend not to be Libertarian. Shoo go away troll.
@H1TMANactual Hey.. all I can do is try to help.. I will leave the feelings, kicking and screaming for you. I am sure a girl will be along shortly to fight with you.
govt creates union jobs and public jobs. that's all it know how to do. where does that money come from? you and me. all day and every day. If the people of this country along with businesses, didn't have to fork over so much money in taxes. we'd never never even have this conversation. Smaller govt, smaller taxes. Sounds like common sense.
This is a joke. Businesses are sitting on money not investing to hire people because no one has money to spend. And of course government creates jobs.
@robertmike57 Gov't only 'creates' public sector jobs, some of which are redundant and/or useless. Public jobs are financed by the private sector. Gov't does not create the private sector jobs which finance everything in this country. Market demand creates jobs, which brings growth. Gov't does not create the demand for the iPad, nor does it decrease demand for VCRs. Gov't interference in the free market system is deleterious. Gov't only takes wealth, it cannot make it, never has.
@HayPennie "Gov't does not create the private sector jobs"
Of course it does. If they invest in infrastructure it will be built by private contractors. They can also invest in R&D at private companies, for example if they want to advocate green energy.
And they even incease the demand for your iPad, because once they hire someone he can buy a iPad with the wage the government pays him.
@HayPennie yawn, what a load of crap. Government provides infrastructure and services to make it possible for the private sector to flourish, as with ensuring your ipad is quality compliant, patent protected can be shipped efficently to a place to purchase ect. God, this Koch Brother front BS is pathetic.
@robertmike57 Gee whiz, how did anyone ever get anything done without make-work gov't jobs? Here I'm thinking it was the invention of shit like the lightbulb, but then u tell me it's all about public unions and 'infrastructure', much of which is prevented going forward by the EPA, [according to you people]. How's all that 'shovel ready' shit worked so far? Pay attention to the state of the economy at all? Stick to your leftard talking points kid - I like the real world. 'Koch'..lol XD
@robertmike57 1. Apple is who makes sure you get a quality product 2. Patent law isn't a given for being a good thing 3. Private companies do the majority of the shipping of goods like iPads (commercial trucking, end-point delivery IE UPS, FedEx). Constantly bringing up (and demonizing) the Koch brothers is what's pathetic, talk about a lazy argument. The Koch brothers have a philosophy more in line with mainstream America than most business leaders, actually. Educate yourself.
@luftwaffle I wouldn't bring up the Koch Brothers if the Cato Institute was the only conservative think tank funded. As for the rest of your tripe, it makes my arguments.
@robertmike57 Infrastructure and national defense are a little bit different than running car companies, health care, American empire expansion, and raiding guitar companies.
So you people all want to pay for the roads and all the infrastructure yourself now? Also for your kids schools? And really who needs the police or the fire department? And medicare, social security & pension LOL. But I guess you are all making $50.000-100.000 a year so that's not a big deal to spend a few $1000 bucks more for stuff like that.
If what was said for #2 just matched what he said.....I would be so happy. I agree with no new taxes on labor or capital. New and/or expanding taxes on unearned or passive revune would not violate this. The taxes on passive incomes and unearned incomes are what needs to be taxed more. A property tax on money is not a new tax on labor or capital.
No new taxes is what got written down, and is not reasonable or what was said.
What, now we need to create even more wealth for the wealthy?! Obama did everything the republicans wanted him to do and there still aren't any economic improvements resulting from that. Look at Sweden, their regulation of the wealthy bloodsuckers and then tell me how much it sucks to live there.
This video is just stupid. You can't just compare Government spending with Jobs ... the most important factor is still the overall economy and if there is a depression government can just attenuate the situation, but not solve it.
Also who says that low spending is responsible for more jobs? Could it just be that the government spends less when the job market is doing well?
@d4rkf1ght3r "government can just attenuate the situation" wow? Does it? That is a fallacy and there's no evidence for it anywhere. That's the point of this video.
Less spending, or smaller government, means less taxes and regulations, therefore more liquidity and competition.
@darkr0astedblend "No evidence for it anywhere" Did you ever look at Germany's ways trough the financial crisis? When it hit the government spent a lot of money to allow companies to keep their qualified workers and when the economy got better especially with growing markets in China the German economy grew and the Government reduced the spending.
Smaller government & more competition works really great in the USA with all oligopolies screwing the citizens, making millions without being taxed ..
@d4rkf1ght3r LOL so Germany spent a lot, but they're trying to impose a spending cap on European country's constitutions. You're wrong. Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece... followed you're strategy, where are they now? Trying to get it's huge government smaller.
The USA isn't a free market, far from it.
Meanwhile, the economic freedom index tells a different story. People are better off with freedom, not coercion.
@darkr0astedblend Greece completely faked its statistics and doesn't even have a system to collect taxes. And those countries where all completely living over their limits. And of course Germany forces regulations on them, but there are actually people who say it is the wrong way, because it reduces their economy.
And the economic freedom index tells WHAT? Nothing! Because it doesn't compare the freedom to something. Look where the USA is in the Gini Index ... that what freedom brings.
@d4rkf1ght3r On one hand you want big government. On the other you don't want people fleeing from taxes so they can survive. You need to learn some communist and socialist history.
Germany is just going all imperialistic style again, but with a more persuasive way, leading the EU and slowly taking each countries' and people's freedoms.
Economic freedom tells us that economies which are more free tend to have a better standard of living. The USA varies from state to state, and isn't the most free
@darkr0astedblend You really think you CEO will leave the country, because he is now just making $4.500.000 instead of $5.000.000 do you really think that? That's just a stupid lie those people tell you the same as they tell you they are job creators ...
"better standard of living. " Really? I guess thats why the US ranks about 50. with Uganda and Iran when it comes to income equality ... I'm sure those people with a bottom income in the USA have a great standard of living
@d4rkf1ght3r Most don't say anything as outlandish as CEO's leaving the country due to taxes. They will say they will become less productive as the disincentives of higher taxes are implemented. If nothing else a very large proportion of small businesses are sole proprietorship that pay taxes through the income tax. They would all be directly and negatively effected by increasing the income tax. Income inequality has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with standard of living.
@d4rkf1ght3r A poor person in the US is better off than the average person in Uganda or Iran despite their greater equality of income it simply means their income distribution has less variance. It says nothing about absolute levels of wealth of different socioeconomic levels. You seem to be fairly economically illiterate go learn some basic economics, and statistics to boot.
@d4rkf1ght3r No, but regular people will flee from taxes and move away to more competitive countries.
I don't really support the USA system, and it depends from state to state, but what you said is true. A poor person in the US has a higher standard of living than in Uganda.
Inequality doesn't mean much if they're still wealthier than the poorest.
The fact is that the top 10 freest markets today have a better standard of living than their neighbors. Whatever else you claim is fantasy.
@d4rkf1ght3r No, but regular people will flee from taxes and move away to more competitive countries.
I don't really support the USA system, and it depends from state to state, but what you said is true. A poor person in the US has a higher standard of living than in Uganda.
Inequality doesn't mean much if they're still wealthier than the poorest.
The fact is that the top 10 freest markets today have a better standard of living than their neighbors. Whatever else you claim is fantasy.
1. Our spending increases are on the elderly and wars... good luck cutting those (lol I do realize it'll be education, science, and the arts that will be cut completely out for our over-bloated military)
2. How is it that the top 2% pay less in taxes than the middle class? We need major tax adjustments, not just "hold it where it is" (with the same low tax rates Bush gave the rich years ago now; Reagan is spinning in his grave)
CONTINUED: Otherwise I do agree with the core of this video, just not the ending "solution". Anyone saying fixing this country's economic situation is going to be a simple plan is fucking nuts, idiotic, or both.
@selymak Indeed, one incredibly complex one. Sadly, at least from what I understand, it doesn't have to be nearly as complicated as it is, it just made it easier to take advantage of if it's complex be
North Korea doesn't have any unemployment, hows that working out for them?
XCritonX 1 week ago
@XCritonX With -0.04 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2012 est.), I'd say not good at all.
luke55664 1 week ago
@Thatmakessense356 n1
D5932 1 month ago
This is bull, this video was made by lobbyist
coryland21 2 months ago
@coryland21 Ad hominem arguments don't work on people worth convincing. Please use a plausible form of argument.
Thatmakessense356 1 month ago 3
@coryland21 No you dolt, lobbyists want MORE government spending! Why? So that the industry they're lobbying on behalf of gets federal funding and/or special treatment and they only have to kick back a portion of the money they make to the politician's campaign funds.
Snoopz0087 1 month ago 5
@coryland21 psychological dissonance sucks doesn’t it?
jonescomplete 1 month ago
@coryland21
Anti-lobbying lobbyists? Did you get that one from the Sam & Max games?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 month ago
Haven't you heard of the fiscal?
coryland21 2 months ago
This is a biased conservative point of view. Therefore unreliable.
vivalaresistanc 3 months ago
@vivalaresistanc
As opposed to a reliable, biased liberal point of view?
Boredpersons55 3 months ago
500 Million plus, to Solyndra nets 1100 lost jobs. Yep, the Government sure knows how to create jobs and lower costs. That's over 1 million to every man, woman and child in the US. Obama and his goofy supporters still think it's alright to extract more capital out of the private sector and tell us the rich are the problem. House plants have a higher IQ.
beta757 3 months ago
Good video. It's nice to hear what actual economists think instead of the usual ridiculous leftist propaganda.
Riclists 4 months ago
Well if it was made by conservatives then obviously all the data and logic they provided is wrong.
Can you say "Viewpoint discrimination?"
DavidUmstattd 4 months ago
@DavidUmstattd It took me a second to realize you were being sarcastic. Isn't that sad?
HamsterFueledRocket 4 months ago
Regulations reduce profits of course, just like in sports you can't break the rules to score more points. Does anyone really think it's worth letting big business pollute with impunity just so they can make a bit more money?
Second, if all this is true why do the majority of economists disagree? And the Cato institude which has a political bias should be trusted over the majority?
Nemesis000000 4 months ago
@Nemesis000000 If you're an economists from a state-funded university or bureaucracy of course you're going to give the thumbs-up to government interventionism. That's good job security but it's an academic conflict of interest.
jaybreak 4 months ago
Too bad this is all bullshit.
hawanja 4 months ago
@hawanja
Spoken like someone who's never started a business, hired another human, or probably even had a job.
rubbersole79 4 months ago
@rubbersole79 You mom paid me to fuck her in the ass last night.
But besides that, this is a video from the Cato institute. Of course they're gonna tell you government spending doesn't create jobs. This is a right wing think tank.
hawanja 4 months ago
@hawanja
And of course a left-wing think tank will go through pains to de-emphasize/marginalize the importance of private initiative with regard to the collective productivity of a society. They'll insist that taking wealth [generated by private sector activity] out of the economy in order to arbitrarily "create a job" for a job's sake and/or spawn additional layers of government bureaucracy is a good, sustainable solution.
bobshenix 3 months ago
@bobshenix Might not be the best solution, but to make the claims that this video makes is highly disingenuous. The GAO estimates that three dollars of economic activity are generated for every one dollar of government stimulus. To claim there is zero benefit or wealth generated by government spending is a lie.
hawanja 3 months ago
@hawanja what is "economic activity"?
darkr0astedblend 3 months ago
@hawanja Your statement is a complete lie, if spending created wealth like you say then Zimbabwe would be the worlds super power right now. According to your logic we should spend spend spend spend with no end in sight. If it was that easy we could just print our selves into prosperity.
thebestsumoeva 3 months ago
@hawanja
Government spending has, is, and always will be counter-productive to economic growth of a country. History proves it, what's happening in the US and some parts of EU prove it. When will you wake up to reality?
DraughtOfPeace 3 months ago
@DraughtOfPeace Wrong, government spending can be a perfectly good driver of economic activity. You people who repeat this "Government is never the answer" bullshit over and over and over fail to understand that it is one of many answers. Those countries in the world in which the populace enjoys a higher standard of living and larger social freedoms - for instance, countries in Norther Europe - are mixed economies. You people need to understand this.
hawanja 3 months ago
Comment removed
MrHamncheez 3 months ago
@hawanja
u commit a whole truckload of economic & logical fallacies. Government is inherently a net drag on economic growth- ANY AND EVERY action taken by government comes at the EXPENSE of the free private productive sector of the economy
u have committed the broken window fallacy- u know what that is? it goes somethin like this:
Johnny one day naughty as he is, breaks one of the baker's windows.
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
The baker seeing this, is FURIOUS with Johnny. People gather all around the damaged store. Some of the people start saying, "poor baker". And others say, "Oh wait! this will create jobs and can stimulate the economy! The baker will need to get his window fixed & thus will employ the glass maker. And the glass maker can then use the money to buy a new suit from the tailor. Then the tailor can buy some carrots from the farmer etc etc etc. "
But something does not add up here....
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
if destruction & coercion really did make people wealthy & 'stimulate' an economy, why stop at just the baker's window. If it really did create wealth, we should break ALL windows. No don't stop there- also destroy all cars - that will create jobs for auto workers. And don't stop there- destroy all computers, steam shovels & tractors. Also destroy all science textbooks- that will also create employment for scientists
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
What is wrong with this thinkin is that u miss the notion of opportunity costs. There are only finite amounts of resources(people, time, tools, technological knowledge, etc) available in an economy. But people have an infinite number of demands. The whole purpose of an economy is to allocate resources in a peaceful manner so as to meet everyone's marginal highest utility at any given moment - to satisfy people's marginal highest desire - this is called wealth
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
If the baker's window was not broken, then not only would he have his window, but also he could use that money & resources & his time & energy to either hire a new employee, expand his buisiness, buy more wheat, or buy a new suit etc etc. And that will truly stimulate the economy in a PRODUCTIVE manner
If u look closely at the net result of both cases, in the former case the whole of society is poorer by AT LEAST 1 broken window.
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
See if the baker spends his money fixin a broken window, he can't spend it hirin a new employee or buyin a new suit. B/c of the broken window though, we don't know what he would have spent those resources on and everyone becomes essentially poorer b/c of it
Same thing w/ ALL govt action. Govt has absolutely no capital- it does not produce any goods only bads or super bads. It STEALS all the resources that it has. it steals the money from the private sector and every person 'employed'
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
by the government inherently costs at least 2 - 3 jobs (assuming equivalent pays). But on average actually, govt workers each cost at least 10 jobs in the private sector. This is a rather conservative estimate
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880 Tell that to Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, XE, Haliburton, or any of the other contractors out there who reap billions upon billions of our public dollars.
Hey, why is it you free-market libertarian-conservative dipshits always want to cut the social programs like Medicare because they "Cost too much," but you never say a damn thing about cutting our overbloated military spending?
hawanja 3 months ago
@hawanja you need to understand that in northern Europe they are (for the most part) living in a bubble that will pop eventually, and it will be that much more difficult to counteract it when it happens. a few of them already encountered said problem, much earlier than the states.. because of their socialist programs, and those that have go the way of Austrian economics and reduce spending.
daPlumber702 3 months ago
@daPlumber702 In Northern Europe, they have problems like shortages of manual labor because too many people have advanced degrees. Don't you wish we had that problem?
So talk shit all you want, in real life the facts agree with my case, not yours. A mixed economy has thus far been shown to give the highest benefit to a nations's citizens. The only reason it wouldn't work here is because you lazy, idiotic dipshits are too fucking stupid to raise taxes on rich people.
hawanja 3 months ago
@hawanja
lolwut. i live in northern europe (netherlands) and we have very low unemployment. there is no shortage of manual labor. also, taxing the rich will never work. taxes in this country are already among the highest in the world, income tax alone is ~50%!
(rich) people put money on a bank, the bank then loans it out to people who need it. the last thing you want is to tax the rich (or others) more because that would missalocate their valuable resources into wasteful government spending..
ApocDevTeam 3 months ago
@ApocDevTeam Sorry but that sounds like a bunch of horse sh#t. If you are defending tax breaks for rich people you are either a complete moron or rich yourself. I work two jobs and have a dependent. I eat f#%#ckin beans every day and scrounge to pay my daughters education, food, clothes, and health. Tax breaks mean a lot to me and my family.
h0li3day 2 months ago
@h0li3day
rather than judging by emotion use your logic. tax increases will never work regardless of whether it's on the rich or poor because taxes take away valuable resources from the private sector. if the rich are taxed less then you don't increase their taxes, you said it yourself, tax breaks would help you. so rather than increase taxes on rich, lower taxes on middle class and poor. also, i'm not rich, i also live on baked beans, but at least i'm not a debt slave.
ApocDevTeam 2 months ago
@hawanja I'm not sure how lazy = not wanting to tax the rich. Pretty sure the welfare states in Europe have high unemployment because those manual labor jobs barely pay more than welfare.
Another problem with your analysis is that here in America, where apparently too few people have college degrees (and the 100,000 dollars in student debts that go with it), is that we already have too many overqualified people. Why should you need a BA to work at the GAP or type into a computer all day?
worldofdraculas 3 months ago
@worldofdraculas The qualifying word in that sentence is "Stupid." Conservatives are too fucking stupid to realize that the rich people are manipulating the "values voters" into passing tax cuts which benefit them and no one else.
Take a look at all of the proposals made by the Republicans and conservatives, since the Supercomitte failed. Every single one of them - ALL OF THEM - raise taxes on the middle class, while cutting taxes for rich people.
So yeah, you people are fucking stupid.
hawanja 3 months ago
@hawanja Of course many are blind like you and so they crank the policy back up once the beauty of the austrian system drags them out of the hole socialism creates.
+ the discovery of oil off shore of Northern Europe hasn't hurt them much either, especially since they nationalize the oil industry and make pure profit out of it, which is pretty f'n despicable itself.
Your argument sucks is what's being said here. It's been proven wrong time and time again, but as I said, people are blind.
daPlumber702 3 months ago
@hawanja Of course there is wealth and benefited when government spends money. The question is the benefit greater than the cost, and who benefits? Lobbyists, politicians, and walls street types benefit from government spending and regulation, and the expense of the rest of us.
MrHamncheez 3 months ago
@bobshenix I'm with a yellow beak think tank and we think this vid in bullsheet..How do these ideas help people? We question everything. What's a "shenix" anyway? Is that some kind of new space age toilet that massages your anus after a burning post "jalepeno popper and cervesa evening" crap? We propose raising taxes on the rich and providing every household with 2 Shenix's.
h0li3day 2 months ago
Your post is nonsensical and almost unworthy of reply. All i'll say is that communist/socialist policies sound nice, but are predictably unsustainable and history has shown us that Marxism basically levels an economy to the ground.
The people may be equal, but they all end up equally miserable and dominated by a powerful [yet oh so self-righteous] government. The living standards of the lower classes in free market societies are superior to those of the working classes with socialism.
bobshenix 2 months ago
Let's get Ron Paul elected in 2012. He is a libertarian running for the republican nomination, and he will reduce the reckless spending more than any other candidate.
qwexas 4 months ago
The government does create jobs and in a healthy economy it has to create jobs. To be sure these jobs have a kind of zero sum game to it and ultimatly the taxpayers pay have to pay these wages but it is necessary in a civil society to maintain a police force and firefighters, and build road and schools with teachers and student. Now these job numbers might pale in comparison to what the private sector should create. But they are as important as any job(cont)
idicula1979 5 months ago
@idicula1979 (cont), but that is the thing there might be some teabaggers that knows this (and the should know it) but they are not interested in building a healthy civil society, for this reason people are right to hold them in contempt. Just look at the gridlock in Washington and tell me it is not their fault infact they would like to create more gridlock, they are the biggest reason that government does not work, (cont)
idicula1979 5 months ago
@idicula1979 (cont) how very ironic would it be for the side that can fanatically and in such a hollow manner hold the constitution up, be the downfall of America.
idicula1979 5 months ago
@idicula1979 You're right. We do need firefighters and policemen and schools and teachers. But those are local and state government employees. The Federal Government doesn't and shouldn't be able to decide who's hired at a local level. That's for the states and individual communities to decide.
What this video is saying, is that spending more money and increasing taxes aren't going to encourage businesses to higher more. It's going to make them lay off workers and hire less.
SPJ1993343 4 months ago
@SPJ1993343 And even if people believe stimulus spending is the key( many of us don't), it should be done at a local level not at the federal level.. That, they will never understand. Clinton had a plan for 100,000 cops coast to coast. But once the initial stimulus to hire those cops dried up, it was the local community that had to pay for their annual salaries, union benefits and all the overtime they suck from the tax payer. Suffice to say, Clinton never met that targeted goal.
luke55664 4 months ago
@idicula1979 Sometimes the federal government is the only only institution to make a large scale project make sense and sometimes it is better left upto the state, but the is a role for all three governments at times local, state, and federal. The problem is that republicans like to think there is a simple one size solution to everythinge, which in many cases is not true life does not have many one size fits all problems. However this is also why your message is so appealing because (cont.)
idicula1979 4 months ago
@idicula1979 allthought it is lacking ( as that should be obvious to anyone) it is clear and can fit on a bummper sticker. Democrats are much more nuanced as life requires. And beside what does it matter to a republican what kind of government it is wheather it be local, federal, or state all three can be obtuse at times. No the republicans just want to make government smaller and smaller till they can choke the life out of it, or as teabagger hero Grover Norquest says "drown it in a bathtub.
idicula1979 4 months ago
Does anyone know where i can find that IMF fiscal stimulus report? Thanks
MAWFYU 5 months ago
Ahh, CATO. Okay so, let me put down what they want in easy terms.
1. Cut spending (Kill all government agencies so they can be privatized.)
2. Pledge no Tax Increases (for the wealthy, those workers didn't earn anything, they don't deserve any money, they can live off mud and dirty water anyway)
3. Regulations (Get rid of them, all of them, and government over site, and kill OSHA too. That will save the trillions.)
Suck my dick, Koch brothers.
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
@Reynard13Fuchs Thank you for demonstrating the bankruptcy of the liberal position. You can't make an argument that government spending creates jobs (no economically valid one exists), so you criticize spending cuts (which return money to the private sector to create jobs), support tax increases (which remove resources from the private sector that could otherwise create jobs and support regulations (which have demonstrably caused more problems than they've solved). Brilliant!
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago in playlist FletchforFreedom's Favorited Videos
@FletchforFreedom Yes, and trickle down economics really helped America, and Ronald Reagan was a noble Holy Crusader for the American Dream.
The far rights objective, is to tear up the constitution, adopt Christianity as the national religion, institute the Holy Bible as law, kill all taxes, abolish regulations and labor laws and criminalize the unions.
Do that and it will be EXACTLY like life in Arab nations. Oppression, Hatred and Death for anyone that disagrees with the law and the wealthy.
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
@Reynard13Fuchs Thanks for another straw man festival. In the 1980s, the rich got richer and the poor got ... richer. Still, neither Cato nor those making economic arguments have any desire to create a national religion (and actively wish to restore the Constitution which the Left has turned into mere paper by contruction). Since the fact is that neither regulations, labor laws nor unions are at all responsible for the prosperity of the workers in this country, the Arab comment is stupid.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I never said what CATO wanted. As for your argument on regulations, they help institute safety that business must maintain. Unions bring workers concerns to the eyes of the business executives, and labor laws provide wage limits (which don't follow inflation) for all workers and prevent industry from hiring children as labor.
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
@Reynard13Fuchs To the contrary, regulations have done more hrm than good, wages and working conditions improved more and more quickly in the absence of both unions and labor laws; capitalism - not unions - brought child labor to an effective end, unions have cost the economy, by conservative estimates, $50 TRILLION dollars (Vedder & Galloway) that might otherwise have been used to improve wages and create jobs. Literally every claim you've made is long disproved.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
Comment removed
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
Comment removed
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So deregulating the airlines didn't send the several airlines into the pit of bankruptcy and death and cause American Airlines to strip all of the grey paint off their aircraft and fly with polished metal to cut costs (also due to the compounded oil crisis of that time). You also say "might otherwise have been used". That can also apply to the Bush and Bush promised Obama era bailouts that went to wall street and into the back pockets of executives, totally unregulated.
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
@Reynard13Fuchs That American couldn't compete is not a problem with deregulation and, in fact, more flights at lower rates providing more jobs were created. That's how competition works. Nor sis I (or anyone else here) defend bailouts (which are a problem of government - which caused the underlying crisis in the first place - not lack of regulation). You seem to like straw men - attributing positions to others without any basis whatsoever.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
Comment removed
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
American Airlines did compete, they found ways to save money and still fly at lower rates than any company at that time and for a while since that time. And yes, no one defended bail outs. But at the time, Bush and the Right Wing said that the US could not let Wall Street, Real Estate, and Banks go bankrupt. They should have let them die. That would have put a lot of people out of jobs, but it would have brought smaller companies into a bigger field with more jobs.
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
@Reynard13Fuchs By definition, if American Airlines could compete, they would still be in business. QED. That Bush was an economic incompetent was a point made by economists (and the "right-wing") all along. That Obama is an even greater economic incompetent is hardly something to cheer. Yes, bailouts should never have happened (actually absent the promise of bailouts much - though not most - of the damage could have been avoided).
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom If you have an ideal society, please spell it out without sarcasm and without left bashing. Explain how it would keep big business from taking the money and giving it to themselves and how it can open jobs. Explain how no regulation, no labor law, and no unions will help the worker stay in a safe workplace, earn an honest and inflation adjusted wage, and have enough to support the economy by buying goods and services.
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
@Reynard13Fuchs I haven't been sarcastic; I've simply been correcting your factual inaccuracies. I am a proponent of liberty. Businesses don't need to be prevented from "taking money" from anyone or need to be forced to "open jobs". In a free market they do so becasue it is in their interest to do so (it's the ONLY thing that has ever created ANY job). Again, wages and working conditions steadily and more rapidly improved in the ABSENCE of unions/labor laws/regulations.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@Reynard13Fuchs I haven't been sarcastic; I've simply been correcting your factual inaccuracies. I am a proponent of liberty. Businesses don't need to be prevented from "taking money" from anyone or need to be forced to "open jobs". In a free market they do so becasue it is in their interest to do so (it's the ONLY thing that has ever created ANY job). Again, wages and working conditions steadily and more rapidly improved in the ABSENCE of unions/labor laws/regulations.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Reynard13Fuchs I haven't been sarcastic; I've simply been correcting your factual inaccuracies. I am a proponent of liberty. Businesses don't need to be prevented from "taking money" from anyone or need to be forced to "open jobs". In a free market they do so becasue it is in their interest to do so (it's the ONLY thing that has ever created ANY job). Again, wages and working conditions steadily and more rapidly improved in the ABSENCE of unions/labor laws/regulations.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@Reynard13Fuchs And since the economy is supported by production, not consumption, the "support the economy" reference is economically absurd.
Oh, and please don;t being up the long debunked canard about the stagnating middle class which has gotten steadily greater compensation in real terms over the last 30 years.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So you are an Economist and Financial Officer. Are you telling me that everything I learned in American Economics about Supply and Demand is a lie?
As for stagnation? No not the middle class, but the US dollar. Wages have remained at the same amount for over 40 years, and the value of the dollar has dropped dramatically since Lyndon B Johnson took office. Since a few years after WWII, the wealthy 1% of Americans have been getting drastically lower income tax rates.
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
@Reynard13Fuchs Nothing I've said contradicts supply and demand. The wage stagnation myth has been long debunked. What has happened is that more compensation has been paid in benefits. Total compensation, adjusted for inflation, has risen substantially and steadily over that entire period. And that rates have dropped from the absurd 90% level to levels that are substantially better for the economy as a whole and job creation is a fundamentally good thing.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@SRone; hmm let me think. The businesses dont get funded b/c government spent the money. Therefore people get laid off because the businesses don't have the money they should have got, but the government spent it. People getting laid off equals a decrease in employment. Need I explain m
nwtigerstrack1053 5 months ago
Not following the 3 goals in this video will destroy America's economy and currency. We can't compete against businesses in countries that do not have this disasterous regulatory and price-fixing overhead. Complain about their practices all you want, but we can only control of our own. Changing the behavior in another country is a different subject of political pursuit entirely. Have fun with that. That's not what this conversation is about.
gwydion75 5 months ago
Government spending certainly created jobs under Reagan. Look at table 1.1.2 on the BEA website. More than 1/3 of the economic growth in 1985 and 1986 was due to increased public investment and consumption. Unemployment fell from 7.5% to 5%. Without that spending boost, growth would have been less then 3% and insufficient to lower unemployment. Facts are stubborn things.
RONPAULFREEDUMB 5 months ago
@RONPAULFREEDUMB Did you even watch the video? The increase in jobs doesn't mean we are wealthier.
SRone45 5 months ago 2
@RONPAULFREEDUMB And how do we know the decrease in employment was a result of Government spending?
SRone45 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just in case of interest:
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is out
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6W07bFa4TzM
Ron Paul 2012
ToxinalX 5 months ago
Truly, this is nonsense. Lower taxes on the wealthy and they will create jobs-in China,India etc.
notaneoliberal 5 months ago
@notaneoliberal Where does the video say to only cut taxes for the wealthy?
marinegrunt0341 5 months ago
@notaneoliberal They wouldn't consider hiring those people if it wasn't as hard to hire in America.
rust454 5 months ago
@rust454 The reason companies hire in third world countries is very simple. Slave wages. Wages for the working people in the US have been flat to declining for 30 years thanks to the anti labor policies of Reagan and all those who have followed. Free market free trade globalism is good for the wealthiest but not the rest of us. That is CATO's agenda. Try doing a search on the Koch bros.
notaneoliberal 5 months ago
Comment removed
Seiku 5 months ago
@notaneoliberal Slave wages compared to what? If they're uneducated labor, undernourished, underperforming, then the product quality would suffer. Your solution is simple, go elsewhere in the world and promote min. wage (inflation subsidy) and other regs that cost businesses money, increasing the price of goods and services everywhere, making us all poorer. Ideas are ideas... stop personalizing them. It's not about notaneoliberal, Koch, Cato or Reagen. Costs reduce gains. We all want to gain.
gwydion75 5 months ago
@gwydion75 You don't seem to be thinking through your own thoughts. Yes we all want to gain. "costs reduce gains"? Gains for who? I am not advocating trying to control wages or labor practices in other parts of the world. I am for protecting our own. I'm not sure what you mean by "stop personalizing them". These are the personal ideas of the Koch bros. They do fund CATO,The Heritage Foundation,etc. Do you have any clue of the pay and working conditions in third world countries?
.
notaneoliberal 5 months ago
Great video, cut government and we will increase prosperity
a4finger 5 months ago
dick Cheney stuck profit margins on the battlefield - Iraq will cost us at least $3 Trillion.
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
1:49 The chart makes no sense. One side says 59 but if you follow the line the otherside says 20.
terribletrench 5 months ago
@terribletrench Right side is government spending as % of GDP, left side is "Employed Civilian Labor Force" as percentage of population.
boredmonkey29 5 months ago
@boredmonkey29 The graph is deliberately misleading since they use spending as a percentage of GDP instead of real spending in billions. Spending as a percentage of GDP measures the ratio between spending growth and GDP growth. When GDP growth is slow, the ratio increases. When GDP growth is slow, the employment to population ratio decreases. If you simply plotted spending in real terms you would see that increased govt spending increases the employment to population ratio.
RONPAULFREEDUMB 5 months ago
@terribletrench One percentage corresponds with the % of population line, the other to the % of GDP line. For example, in 2000, when the Federal Spending % of GDP was around 18%, the Employed % of Population was up at 64%. In contrast, at 25% of GDP in 2009 (it's now up near 80%), the employed % of population is near 59%. It's a 5% loss of private employment (productive employment) for a 7% gain in Federal spending of GDP.
gwydion75 5 months ago
1:49 The chart makes no sense. One side says 59 but if you follow the line the otherside says 20.
terribletrench 5 months ago
Repealing Davis-Bacon would go a long way to reducing the cost of govt projects, most of which I agree are inefficient & wasteful.
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
it's the same shit in Canada. We have this economic action plan. All the government is doing is taking tax money and just making busy work for people
MaddDogg81 5 months ago
"Increases in gov't spending is associated with lower levels of employment"
1:45
lol. I think it makes more sense to say the low employment causes increased Gov't spending (as a percentage of GDP). Not the other way around. Yet this vid uses this correlation to argue that gov't spending hurts employment. WTF?
GaramRee 5 months ago 2
ALL! Systemic Failures are predicated upon the fact that the Top 1% do NOT have a Tax Rate Increase. As well the Continued exodus of Manufacturing Base because of Tax Breaks and Subsidies. This is a Man Made Problem, the question is why would the U.S. Government want social unrest? Why would anyone want the most well armed Country in the history of mankind, starving? Austerity is coming and so is the result of that action. Once again why?
JWnFL 5 months ago
@JWnFL "All" is a child's word. Caps Lock is a child's tool; adding volume but not veracity. Between your random capitalization, advocacy of violence, and dogmatic talking points, I suspect that you cannot be reasoned with. You are either a troll, or as coined in L'Umanita, a useful idiot.
032125 5 months ago
@032125 I offered you more information? if you know everything you dont need more information, I am sorry that you are done learning.
as for protesting our way into the white house? it hasnt worked in 40 years. I wish protesting would effect real change.
Good Luck and if you ever change your mind zerohedge (dot) com has one of the largest and most educated Pro-Libertarian web sites on the web.
as for offering myself up as a punching bag so that others may learn, I have in the past.. Yes.
JWnFL 5 months ago
@JWnFL I think you just responded so someone other than me, I don't recall mentioning protesting or the white house.
But since you keep pushing your website, I'll push a better website - Mises dot org.
032125 5 months ago
@032125 Thanks for the website I will check it out.. we promote misses institute already.. if this other misses is any good I will pass it on to Tyler and maybe he will link to it.
JWnFL 5 months ago
The information is fine I guess, but too complicated and laborious to share with the uninformed layman - aka not usable in winning converts, aka preaching to the choir. Oh well.
LotharioRowe 5 months ago
This is a specious argument.
tdavis0525 5 months ago
@tdavis0525 The first part, i'd agree, does seem specious.. however the second half or so is accurate.
alCIAdadidit 5 months ago
It's funny, Democrats' goals are the exact opposite of the three suggestions at the end of the video. More spending, higher taxes, and more regulation. People say the two parties are the same, but at least Republicans pay lip service to the three goals.
strabes88 5 months ago
Also see this video and more on the Silver Bullet page on Facebook
MysteryManagement 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama and the Democrats are doing everything that they can to hold back, control, hamper, regulate and steal from businesses and those who start, own and run them. They are doing everything possible to destroy the economy. Then they scream JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
carcabe 5 months ago
Government spending pays off favors and funds the excessive overhead burden of the federal government.
DONGOE 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cato institute propoganda!
Less is MORE!!
Do NOTHING and everything will be better!! probelms fix themselves thru greed!
JWnFL 5 months ago
@JWnFL Ask yourself: where do most problems in the US come from? You can trace most of the problems we're dealing with today to the government.
You need to think about your problem-solving philosophy - continuously putting counter-productive government patches on problems that government created is only going to make things worse, like it is. We didn't become the greatest country in the history of the Earth by having a large government.
luftwaffle 5 months ago
Comment removed
H1TMANactual 5 months ago
@JWnFL Liberal idiocy:
Do everything and borrow and spend like crazy. Greed-less politicians will fix everything and we can legislate our way to prosperity. Yes we can!
H1TMANactual 5 months ago
@H1TMANactual stop zerohedge (dot) com and maybe you will have a better understanding of the world. my motto is "Vote with Bullets" so you could say I am liberal with ammo.. or rope, I like the idea of stretching some necks. but the fact that you are stuck on team blue or team red means you need more information.
JWnFL 5 months ago
@JWnFL Blue or Red? I have been a Libertarian for years.
H1TMANactual 5 months ago
@H1TMANactual Until you can defend the cause.. Do us all a favor and pretend to be part of another party, Please.
JWnFL 5 months ago
@JWnFL Yeah o.k retard, you're here calling CATO propaganda (notice the correct spelling) and telling me to pretend not to be Libertarian. Shoo go away troll.
H1TMANactual 5 months ago
@H1TMANactual Hey.. all I can do is try to help.. I will leave the feelings, kicking and screaming for you. I am sure a girl will be along shortly to fight with you.
JWnFL 5 months ago
@JWnFL Whatever you say retard.
H1TMANactual 5 months ago
@H1TMANactual whatever internet tuff guy!
JWnFL 5 months ago
@JWnFL down with koch
httm241 5 months ago
@httm241 Amen Brother!! Preach It!!
JWnFL 5 months ago
One of the best videos Cato has ever made. Thank you.
boredmonkey29 5 months ago
Trickle down economics doesn't create jobs either.
InfidelAvenger 5 months ago
@InfidelAvenger What do you call stimulus packages, if not "trickle-down economics"?
luftwaffle 5 months ago
govt creates union jobs and public jobs. that's all it know how to do. where does that money come from? you and me. all day and every day. If the people of this country along with businesses, didn't have to fork over so much money in taxes. we'd never never even have this conversation. Smaller govt, smaller taxes. Sounds like common sense.
FriendsMoneyLife 5 months ago
This is a joke. Businesses are sitting on money not investing to hire people because no one has money to spend. And of course government creates jobs.
robertmike57 5 months ago
@robertmike57 Gov't only 'creates' public sector jobs, some of which are redundant and/or useless. Public jobs are financed by the private sector. Gov't does not create the private sector jobs which finance everything in this country. Market demand creates jobs, which brings growth. Gov't does not create the demand for the iPad, nor does it decrease demand for VCRs. Gov't interference in the free market system is deleterious. Gov't only takes wealth, it cannot make it, never has.
HayPennie 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HayPennie "Gov't does not create the private sector jobs"
Of course it does. If they invest in infrastructure it will be built by private contractors. They can also invest in R&D at private companies, for example if they want to advocate green energy.
And they even incease the demand for your iPad, because once they hire someone he can buy a iPad with the wage the government pays him.
d4rkf1ght3r 5 months ago
@HayPennie yawn, what a load of crap. Government provides infrastructure and services to make it possible for the private sector to flourish, as with ensuring your ipad is quality compliant, patent protected can be shipped efficently to a place to purchase ect. God, this Koch Brother front BS is pathetic.
robertmike57 5 months ago
@robertmike57 Gee whiz, how did anyone ever get anything done without make-work gov't jobs? Here I'm thinking it was the invention of shit like the lightbulb, but then u tell me it's all about public unions and 'infrastructure', much of which is prevented going forward by the EPA, [according to you people]. How's all that 'shovel ready' shit worked so far? Pay attention to the state of the economy at all? Stick to your leftard talking points kid - I like the real world. 'Koch'..lol XD
HayPennie 5 months ago
@robertmike57 1. Apple is who makes sure you get a quality product 2. Patent law isn't a given for being a good thing 3. Private companies do the majority of the shipping of goods like iPads (commercial trucking, end-point delivery IE UPS, FedEx). Constantly bringing up (and demonizing) the Koch brothers is what's pathetic, talk about a lazy argument. The Koch brothers have a philosophy more in line with mainstream America than most business leaders, actually. Educate yourself.
luftwaffle 5 months ago
@luftwaffle I wouldn't bring up the Koch Brothers if the Cato Institute was the only conservative think tank funded. As for the rest of your tripe, it makes my arguments.
robertmike57 5 months ago
@robertmike57 Infrastructure and national defense are a little bit different than running car companies, health care, American empire expansion, and raiding guitar companies.
strabes88 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>> Cut government spending by 100% <<<
So you people all want to pay for the roads and all the infrastructure yourself now? Also for your kids schools? And really who needs the police or the fire department? And medicare, social security & pension LOL. But I guess you are all making $50.000-100.000 a year so that's not a big deal to spend a few $1000 bucks more for stuff like that.
d4rkf1ght3r 5 months ago
If what was said for #2 just matched what he said.....I would be so happy. I agree with no new taxes on labor or capital. New and/or expanding taxes on unearned or passive revune would not violate this. The taxes on passive incomes and unearned incomes are what needs to be taxed more. A property tax on money is not a new tax on labor or capital.
No new taxes is what got written down, and is not reasonable or what was said.
SpamSpamNEggs 5 months ago
What, now we need to create even more wealth for the wealthy?! Obama did everything the republicans wanted him to do and there still aren't any economic improvements resulting from that. Look at Sweden, their regulation of the wealthy bloodsuckers and then tell me how much it sucks to live there.
NeverSeenAsaskatoon 5 months ago
Comment removed
bombledotcom 5 months ago
Obama has failed. He will not be re-elected.
504crimson 5 months ago
Of course the "Job Creators" ...
This video is just stupid. You can't just compare Government spending with Jobs ... the most important factor is still the overall economy and if there is a depression government can just attenuate the situation, but not solve it.
Also who says that low spending is responsible for more jobs? Could it just be that the government spends less when the job market is doing well?
d4rkf1ght3r 5 months ago
@d4rkf1ght3r "government can just attenuate the situation" wow? Does it? That is a fallacy and there's no evidence for it anywhere. That's the point of this video.
Less spending, or smaller government, means less taxes and regulations, therefore more liquidity and competition.
darkr0astedblend 5 months ago 3
@darkr0astedblend "No evidence for it anywhere" Did you ever look at Germany's ways trough the financial crisis? When it hit the government spent a lot of money to allow companies to keep their qualified workers and when the economy got better especially with growing markets in China the German economy grew and the Government reduced the spending.
Smaller government & more competition works really great in the USA with all oligopolies screwing the citizens, making millions without being taxed ..
d4rkf1ght3r 5 months ago
@d4rkf1ght3r LOL so Germany spent a lot, but they're trying to impose a spending cap on European country's constitutions. You're wrong. Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece... followed you're strategy, where are they now? Trying to get it's huge government smaller.
The USA isn't a free market, far from it.
Meanwhile, the economic freedom index tells a different story. People are better off with freedom, not coercion.
darkr0astedblend 5 months ago
@darkr0astedblend Greece completely faked its statistics and doesn't even have a system to collect taxes. And those countries where all completely living over their limits. And of course Germany forces regulations on them, but there are actually people who say it is the wrong way, because it reduces their economy.
And the economic freedom index tells WHAT? Nothing! Because it doesn't compare the freedom to something. Look where the USA is in the Gini Index ... that what freedom brings.
d4rkf1ght3r 5 months ago
@d4rkf1ght3r On one hand you want big government. On the other you don't want people fleeing from taxes so they can survive. You need to learn some communist and socialist history.
Germany is just going all imperialistic style again, but with a more persuasive way, leading the EU and slowly taking each countries' and people's freedoms.
Economic freedom tells us that economies which are more free tend to have a better standard of living. The USA varies from state to state, and isn't the most free
darkr0astedblend 5 months ago
@darkr0astedblend You really think you CEO will leave the country, because he is now just making $4.500.000 instead of $5.000.000 do you really think that? That's just a stupid lie those people tell you the same as they tell you they are job creators ...
"better standard of living. " Really? I guess thats why the US ranks about 50. with Uganda and Iran when it comes to income equality ... I'm sure those people with a bottom income in the USA have a great standard of living
d4rkf1ght3r 5 months ago
@d4rkf1ght3r Most don't say anything as outlandish as CEO's leaving the country due to taxes. They will say they will become less productive as the disincentives of higher taxes are implemented. If nothing else a very large proportion of small businesses are sole proprietorship that pay taxes through the income tax. They would all be directly and negatively effected by increasing the income tax. Income inequality has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with standard of living.
bullpcp 5 months ago
@d4rkf1ght3r A poor person in the US is better off than the average person in Uganda or Iran despite their greater equality of income it simply means their income distribution has less variance. It says nothing about absolute levels of wealth of different socioeconomic levels. You seem to be fairly economically illiterate go learn some basic economics, and statistics to boot.
bullpcp 5 months ago
@d4rkf1ght3r No, but regular people will flee from taxes and move away to more competitive countries.
I don't really support the USA system, and it depends from state to state, but what you said is true. A poor person in the US has a higher standard of living than in Uganda.
Inequality doesn't mean much if they're still wealthier than the poorest.
The fact is that the top 10 freest markets today have a better standard of living than their neighbors. Whatever else you claim is fantasy.
darkr0astedblend 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@d4rkf1ght3r No, but regular people will flee from taxes and move away to more competitive countries.
I don't really support the USA system, and it depends from state to state, but what you said is true. A poor person in the US has a higher standard of living than in Uganda.
Inequality doesn't mean much if they're still wealthier than the poorest.
The fact is that the top 10 freest markets today have a better standard of living than their neighbors. Whatever else you claim is fantasy.
darkr0astedblend 5 months ago
1. Cut government spending by 100%
2. Abolish tax
3. Abolish top-down regulations
god0fgod 5 months ago 42
@god0fgod cut government by 100%?? what about the military?
popularopinion1 5 months ago
@god0fgod just like estonia and hong kong =)
selymak 5 months ago
@god0fgod - That's a good start!!!
DONGOE 5 months ago
@god0fgod I agree, but don't we have a military because of tax. I'm not trying to make an argument. I'm just 15 and curious.
jessecabrera95 5 months ago
@jessecabrera95 If people want to have a military they can fund it voluntarily and use it or defensive purposes only.
god0fgod 5 months ago
@god0fgod thanks for the answer...i'm still trying to learn all this politic and government stuff
jessecabrera95 5 months ago
where can I get that chart of civilian labor force participation vs. federal spending as a % of GDP?
TomWatson4Congress 5 months ago
Problems with the so-called "solution":
1. Our spending increases are on the elderly and wars... good luck cutting those (lol I do realize it'll be education, science, and the arts that will be cut completely out for our over-bloated military)
2. How is it that the top 2% pay less in taxes than the middle class? We need major tax adjustments, not just "hold it where it is" (with the same low tax rates Bush gave the rich years ago now; Reagan is spinning in his grave)
3. LMFAO... GL and HF...
Truthiness231 5 months ago
CONTINUED: Otherwise I do agree with the core of this video, just not the ending "solution". Anyone saying fixing this country's economic situation is going to be a simple plan is fucking nuts, idiotic, or both.
Truthiness231 5 months ago
@Truthiness231 bringing free market capitalism to america is a hard task.
selymak 5 months ago 35
@selymak Indeed, one incredibly complex one. Sadly, at least from what I understand, it doesn't have to be nearly as complicated as it is, it just made it easier to take advantage of if it's complex be